Gold Dragon wrote:Skeezo wrote:Gold Dragon wrote:
You are correct. It will not be 50M+ because of the 4 year limit.
The ten year vet max will be 33M if the cap is as projected at 102M. At 4.5% raises over 4 years that is 141M. A 4 year 28M contract like demar is 112M. So the difference is 29M. How can you say that contracts are ridiculous and at the same time say that is a small amount of money that lowry should just give up because of loyalty?
I can say it cause he is already getting 112m for four years of service... I can say it because in four years a then 31-year-old Demar DeRozan making 28m per will be worth way more than a 35-year-old Lowry making 37-38m... That's foolish... If you know you don't have TRUE Franchise changing players ala LeBron, A.Davis, CP3, Durant, Westbrook, then they are not worth the 10-year 35% max... I love both Demar and Lowry and their worth the 25% and maybe even the 30% max but not the 35%... We are a very good team, but we aren't contenders, and you don't pay your two best players Max dollars if they aren't getting you into Contender status.
Again if Lowry wants to walk away from Toronto to go to an unsure environment, and surely a non-competitive one for 20-30m extra let him... I'm still not a believer there are going to be 35% max offers for him... Anyways, I guess I am the person that believes there isn't much in the world you can do for 140m that you can't already do with 110m. Anything else you could mention is merely an exercise in vanity or power which to me is just douche like. Guess I'm just hoping Lowry is the type to realize that.
Unfortunately, your personal feelings about how much money is "enough" have no bearing on the type of contract he will be offered or accept.
We went through all this with demar's contract and complaining about it and misreading the market again will not get you anywhere. Trying to impose your socialist perspective on the free market process of NBA free agency will only frustrate you.
DeMar did not receive a 35% max, matter of fact he didn't even receive a 30% max. There won't be as much of a misread in the market this time around either. There's less money in the market (cap is going to be lower than expected), and already teams feeling they made major mistakes with the money they spent last year. You pay a player for what he's going to do for you, not what he's already done. Unfortunately, Lowry will not be providing the value of 37-38m at age 35.
I'm not trying to impose anything but it's funny you bring up free markets in what is actually a pretty closed ecosystem called the NBA... Hey, I wanna start a team in Seattle? "Sorry no go... restricted access" I see also see Team Revenue Sharing, Salary Cap, Maximum Salaries and I say, it looks pretty socialist to me... The only thing capitalist going on is restricting anybody else's access, and then exploiting the costs on to the consumer like a monopoly or oligarchy would. However, inside the NBA they take care of their own including the players and why? Because the NBAPL haven't had their union get busted apart like everybody elses did in the 70's and 80s... Name another business where the workers take home 51% of manufactured or produced revenue? Hate on socialism all you want, but we are eventually going to get there... Technology has found the faults in capitalism... Efficiency and Mechanism is rapidly replacing the need for human labour... Can't work if there is no jobs, and can't make no money if people aren't making any... Visicous cycle that points to an eventual collapse of a system.
